L.N MITTAL, J. (Oral):
Defendant has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 23.09.2013 (Annexure P-10), passed by the trial court, thereby dismissing application (Annexure P-8), filed by the defendant for sine die adjournment of the suit, which has been instituted by respondents/plaintiffs i.e Bhakra Beas Management Board and its Executive Engineer.
Plaintiffs have filed suit vide plaint Annexure P-1 against the defendant-petitioner for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction. The defendant alleged in application (Annexure P-8) that this Court, vide order dated 23.04.2013 (Annexure P-7), passed in bunch of writ petitions and other cases, has directed determination of the question regarding ownership, management, administration and control over residential, commercial and agricultural properties located within the municipal limits of Nangal and till such determination, all other litigation has to be kept in abeyance.
Plaintiffs, by filing reply (Annexure P-9), opposed the application and controverted the averments made therein. It was pleaded that order Annexure P-7 passed by this Court has no bearing on the instant suit.
Learned trial court, vide impugned order (Annexure P-10), has dismissed the application (Annexure p-8) filed by the defendant, who has, therefore, filed this revision petition to assail the said order.
I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
Counsel for the petitioner reiterated that vide order Annexure P-7 passed by this Court, all cases pertaining to the properties in municipal limits of Nangal have to be kept in abeyance, and therefore, the instant suit is also required to be adjourned sine die till determination of controversy pursuant to order Annexure P-7. The contention cannot be accepted. Perusal of order Annexure P-7 reveals that only eviction and recovery proceedings against tenants/occupiers/licensees have to be kept in abeyance by the Courts concerned. Consequently, every suit relating to property in Nangal is not to be kept in abeyance. On the contrary, only cases relating to eviction/recovery proceedings initiated against tenants/occupiers/licensees have to be kept in abeyance. The instant suit does not pertain to eviction or recovery proceedings. Consequently, the instant suit is not required to be kept in abeyance, pursuant to order Annexure P-7.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find that application Annexure P-8 filed by the defendant, has been rightly dismissed by the trial court. There is no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the impugned order of the trial court so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is completely misconceived and meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine.
C.M No. 20766-CII of 2013 for interim stay is disposed of as infructuous.